This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-274R
entitled 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Secure Border Initiative
Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan' which was released on April 30,
2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-09-274R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 30, 2009:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Chairman:
The Honorable Harold Rogers:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Secure Border Initiative
Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan:
This letter formally transmits the summary of an oral briefing we gave
in response to a mandate in the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, and subsequent
agency comments.[Footnote 1] This mandate required the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to prepare an expenditure plan that satisfied
12 specified conditions, and for the plan to be submitted to and
approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees before the
agency could obligate $400 million of the approximately $775 million
appropriated for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) fencing,
infrastructure, and technology.2 In response to this requirement, DHS
submitted a plan on March 4, 2009, titled “U.S. Customs and Border
Protection: Secure Border Initiative Border Security, Fencing,
Infrastructure and Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure
Plan.” As required by the act, we reviewed the plan and on March 12 and
March 13, 2009, briefed staff of the Senate and House Appropriations
Subcommittees, respectively, on the analysis of whether the plan
satisfied the 12 specified legislative conditions.
In summary, we found that the expenditure plan did not fully satisfy
all of the conditions set out by law. Specifically, three of the
conditions were satisfied and nine were partially satisfied. For a more
detailed summary of the results of our work, see slides 5, 6 and 7.
Based on the results of our review, we are not making any
recommendations for congressional consideration or agency action.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS stated that it disagreed
with our assessment of partially satisfied for three legislative
conditions. Specifically, DHS said that we had not considered
additional information not included in the plan that it provided that
would support an assessment of these legislative conditions as
satisfied. Because the legislative requirement required that the
expenditure plan (emphasis added) contain information to address the
legislative conditions, we limited our assessment to the information in
the expenditure plan. Nevertheless, the additional information program
officials provided during the course of our review added context, but
would not have changed our assessments of these legislative conditions.
In response to DHS’s comments, we clarified our definitions of
satisfied, partially satisfied and not satisfied to make it clear that
we relied only on the expenditure plan in making our assessments. DHS’s
comments are also discussed in enclosure I on slides 61 through 64 and
are reprinted in enclosure II.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
Members of other Senate and House committees that have authorization
and oversight responsibilities for homeland security. We are also
sending copies to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This report will also
be available at no charge on our Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staffs have questions
concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8816 or
stanar@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Susan Quinlan, Assistant Director, and Jeanette Espinola,
Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Sylvia Bascope, Claudia
Becker, Frances Cook, Deborah Davis, Katherine Davis, Robert Lowthian,
Jeremy Rothgerber, Jamelyn Payan, Walter Russell, Erin Smith, and
Meghan Squires made significant contributions to the work.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
Enclosures (2):
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Briefing to the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate
and House Committees on Appropriations:
Briefing on U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Secure Border
Initiative Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan:
Prepared for the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations:
Briefing Overview:
* Objective, Scope, and Methodology;
* Results in Brief;
* Background;
* Findings;
* Concluding Observations;
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation;
* Related GAO Products.
Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objective was to determine whether U.S. Customs and Border
Protection’s (CBP) Secure Border Initiative (SBI)[Footnote 2] fiscal
year 2009 expenditure plan satisfies 12 legislative conditions as
required by the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.[Footnote 3]
To accomplish our objective, we analyzed the SBI expenditure plan. We
also obtained relevant documentation, such as program schedules and
status reports, and interviewed cognizant program officials at the DHS
CBP headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, in making our
determination regarding whether the SBI expenditure plan satisfied each
legislative condition, we limited our assessment to the information in
the expenditure plan because the legislative requirement required that
the expenditure plan(emphasis added) contain information to address the
legislative conditions. Nevertheless, the information we collected in
addition to the expenditure plan provided additional context, but would
not have changed our assessment. We determined that funding, staffing,
and fencing mileage data provided by CBP were sufficiently reliable for
purposes of this briefing. We based our decision on an assessment for
each respective area by questioning cognizant DHS officials about the
source of the data and policies and procedures to maintain the
integrity of these data. We conducted this performance audit from
October 2008 to March 2009, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the work to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
[End of section]
Results in Brief: Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions:
The SBI expenditure plan satisfied 3 legislative conditions and
partially satisfied 9 legislative conditions.[Footnote 4] The 12
legislative conditions and the level of satisfaction are summarized in
table 1.
Table 1: GAO Assessment of Satisfaction of Legislative Conditions:
Legislative condition: 1. A detailed accounting of the program’s
implementation to date for all investments, including technology and
tactical infrastructure, for funding already expended relative to
system capabilities or services, system performance levels, mission
benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost targets, program management
capabilities, identification of the maximum investment, including life
cycle costs, related to the SBI program or any successor program, and
description of the methodology used to obtain these cost figures.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 2. A description of how specific projects will
further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the Department of Homeland
Security Secure Border Plan,[A] and how the expenditure plan allocates
funding to the highest priority border security needs.
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition: 3. An explicit plan of action defining how all
funds are to be obligated to meet future program commitments, with the
planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based delivery of
specific capabilities, services, performance levels, mission benefits
and outcomes, and program management capabilities.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 4. An identification of staffing, including full-
time equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office.
Status: Satisfied.
Legislative condition: 5. A description of how the plan addresses
security needs at the Northern border and ports of entry, including
infrastructure, technology, design and operations requirements,
specific locations where funding would be used, and priorities for
northern border activities;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 6. A report on budget, obligations and
expenditures, the activities completed, and the progress made by the
program in terms of obtaining operational control[B] of the entire
border of the United States;
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 7. A listing of all open GAO and Office of
Inspector General (OIG) recommendations related to the program and the
status of DHS actions to address the recommendations, including
milestones to fully address them.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 8. A certification by the Chief Procurement
Officer (CPO) of the Department that the program (a) has been reviewed
and approved in accordance with the investment management process of
the Department, and that the process fulfills all capital planning and
investment control requirements and reviews established by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), including as provided in Circular A-11,
part 7; (b) that the plans for the program comply with the Federal
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices, and a
description of the actions being taken to address areas of non-
compliance, the risks associated with such actions, together with any
plans for addressing these risks, and the status of the implementation
of such actions; (c) that procedures to prevent conflicts of interest
between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are established
and that the SBI Program Office has adequate staff and resources to
effectively manage the Secure Border Initiative program, all contracts,
including the exercise of technical oversight; and (d) the
certifications required under this paragraph should be accompanied by
all documents or memoranda, as well as documentation and a description
of the investment review processes used to obtain such certifications.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 9. A certification by the Chief Information
Officer (CIO) of the Department that: (a) the system architecture of
the program is sufficiently aligned with the information systems
enterprise architecture of the Department to minimize future rework,
including a description of all aspects of the architectures that were
or were not assessed in making the alignment determination, the date of
the alignment determination, and any known areas of misalignment
together with the associated risks and corrective actions to address
any such areas; (b) the program has a risk management process that
regularly and proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and
monitors risks throughout the system life cycle and communicates high-
risk conditions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Department of
Homeland Security investment decision-makers, as well as a listing of
all the program’s high risks and the status of efforts to address such
risks; (c) an independent verification and validation agent is
currently under contract for the projects funded under this heading;
and (d) the certification required under this paragraph should be
accompanied by all documents or memoranda, as well as documentation and
a description of the investment review processes used to obtain such
certification.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 10. A certification by the Chief Human Capital
Officer (CHCO) of the Department that the human capital needs of the
Secure Border Initiative program are being addressed so as to ensure
adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the Secure Border
Initiative, together with a description of SBI staffing priorities.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 11. An analysis by the Secretary for each
segment, defined as not more than 15 miles, of fencing or tactical
infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative
means of achieving operational control, and such analysis should
include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended effects
on communities, and other factors critical to the decision making
process.
Status: Partially satisfied.
Legislative condition: 12. Is reviewed by GAO.
Status: Satisfied.
[A] Department of Homeland Security, Secure Border Strategic Plan
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1, 2006).
[B] DHS defines effective, or operational, control of U.S. borders as
the ability to consistently (1) detect illegal entries into the United
States, (2) identify and classify these entries to determine the level
of threat involved, (3) efficiently and effectively respond to these
entries, and (4) bring events to a satisfactory law enforcement
resolution.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
[End of table]
In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS stated that it disagreed
with our assessment of partially satisfied for conditions 1, 3, and 11.
Specifically, DHS said that we had not considered additional
information not included in the SBI expenditure plan that it provided
that would support an assessment of these legislative conditions as
satisfied. Because the legislative requirement required that the
expenditure plan (emphasis added) contain information to address the
legislative conditions, we limited our assessment to the information in
the expenditure plan. The additional information program officials
provided during the course of our review added context, but would not
have changed our assessments of these legislative conditions. In
response to DHS’s comments, we clarified our definitions of satisfied,
partially satisfied and not satisfied to make it clear that we relied
only on the expenditure plan in making our assessments. DHS’s comments
are also discussed on slides 61 through 64 and are reprinted in
enclosure 2.
[End of section]
Background: SBI Program Operations:
In November 2005, DHS announced the launch of SBI, a multiyear,
multibillion-dollar program aimed at securing U.S. borders and reducing
illegal immigration. Elements of SBI will be carried out by several
organizations within DHS.
The current focus of the SBI program is on the southwest border areas
between ports of entry[Footnote 5] that CBP has designated as having
the highest need for enhanced border security because of serious
vulnerabilities.
CBP also has ongoing activities and initiatives to secure the northern
border at and between ports of entry. For example, CBP is increasing
U.S. Border Patrol personnel along the northern border and deploying
additional technology at northern border ports of entry, such as
radiation portal monitors to screen for nuclear materials.
The U.S. Border Patrol has 20 sectors for which the Border Patrol is
responsible for detecting, interdicting, and apprehending those who
attempt illegal entry or to smuggle people, including terrorists, or
contraband, including weapons of mass destruction, across U.S. borders
between official ports of entry (see figure 1).
Figure 1: U.S. Border Patrol Sectors:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of the United States]
U.S. Border Patrol Sectors are depicted as follows:
Blaine;
Buffalo;
Del Rio;
Detroit;
El Centro;
El Paso;
Grand Forks;
Houlton;
Laredo;
Marfa;
Miami;
New Orleans;
Ramey;
Rio Grande Valley;
San Diego;
Spokane;
Swanton;
Tucson;
Yuma.
Sources: CBP and MapResource(map).
[End of figure]
The CBP SBI program office is responsible for developing a
comprehensive border protection system that is intended to enable CBP
officers and U.S. Border Patrol agents and officers to gain effective
control of the U.S. borders.
The SBI program office includes:
* the SBInet office, which is responsible for technology projects
(e.g., sensors, cameras, radars, communications systems, and mounted
laptop computers for agent vehicles); and;
* the SBI Tactical Infrastructure (TI) office, which is responsible for
pedestrian and vehicle fencing, lighting, and roads.
In September 2006, CBP awarded a prime contract to the Boeing Company
for 3 years, with three additional 1-year options. As the prime
contractor, Boeing is responsible for acquiring, deploying, and
sustaining selected SBI technology and tactical infrastructure
projects, and providing supply chain management for selected tactical
infrastructure projects.
CBP is executing part of SBI’s activities through a series of task
orders to Boeing for individual projects. As of November 25, 2008, CBP
had awarded Boeing 11 task orders. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Task Orders Awarded to Boeing for SBI Projects as of November
25, 2008 (Dollars in Millions):
Task order description: Program Management: The mission engineering,
facilities and infrastructure, systems engineering, test and
evaluation, and program management services to develop and deploy the
SBInet system.
Date awarded: 09/21/2006;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $147.2;
Task order obligation: $147.2.
Task order description: Project 28: Boeing’s pilot project and initial
implementation of SBInet technology for 28 miles of the border in the
Tucson sector.
Date awarded: 10/20/2006;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $20.7;
Task order obligation: $20.7.
Task order description: Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR): The
construction of 32 miles of vehicle and pedestrian barriers on the
southern border of the BMGR in the Yuma Sector.
Date awarded: 01/12/2007;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $122.2;
Task order obligation: $122.2.
Task order description: Fence Lab: The testing of potential pedestrian
and vehicle fence and barrier solutions.
Date awarded:
Ceiling of funds[A]: $0.7;
Task order obligation: $0.7.
Task order description: Design: SBInet deployment design solution,
including design, environmental-clearance support, and locations for
the SBInet technology solution in the Yuma, Tucson, and El Paso sectors.
Date awarded: 08/01/2007;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $84.0;
Task order obligation: $84.0.
Task order description: Command, Control, Communications and
Intelligence (C3I) and Common Operating Picture (COP): The development
of the next version of the SBInet operating software to design,
develop, and demonstrate a functional SBInet C3I/COP system.
Date awarded: 12/07/2007;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $10.6;
Task order obligation: $10.6.
Task order description: SBInet System: A follow on to the program
management task order, this task order specifies the program management
and system-engineering activities required to achieve an integrated
program across all task orders issues under the SBI contract.
Date awarded: 04/15/2008;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $96.1;
Task order obligation: $96.1.
Task order description: Supply and Supply Chain Management: The
development and implementation of a supply and supply chain management
system solution to execute tactical infrastructure projects.
Date awarded: 01/07/2008;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $313.3;
Task order obligation: $313.3.
Task order description: Arizona Deployment Task Order: Boeing’s
deployment of two projects of the SBInet system along approximately 53
miles of the southwest border in the Tucson sector.
Date awarded: 06/25/2008;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $81.9;
Task order obligation: $52.3.
Task order description: Integrated Logistics Support: Provides SBInet
with the required maintenance and logistics support to operate the
system.
Date awarded: 08/16/2008;
Ceiling of funds[A]: $24.9;
Task order obligation: $9.2.
Total:
Ceiling of funds[A]: $968.2;
Task order obligation: $922.9.
Source: CBP.
[A] The ceiling of funds is the price or maximum value of the task
order. For example, the Arizona Deployment Task Order has a “ceiling”
of $81.9 million; however, the funds are incrementally obligated to
complete the work. The total funds obligated to a task order at a
particular moment in time may be less than the total ceiling expected
to be reached in the future.
[End of table]
Background: SBI Appropriations:
More than $3.6 billion has been appropriated for fiscal years 2005
through 2009 (see table 3).
Table 3: Funds Appropriated, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009 (Dollars in
Thousands):
Fiscal year: 2005[A];
Appropriated funds: $38,480.
Fiscal year: 2006[B];
Appropriated funds: $325,000.
Fiscal year: 2007[C];
Appropriated funds: $1,187,565.
Fiscal year: 2008[C];
Appropriated funds: $1,302,587[D].
Fiscal year: 2009[C];
Appropriated funds: $775,000.
Fiscal year: Total;
Appropriated funds: $3,628,632.
Source: CBP.
[A] In September 2006, the SBI program office obligated the “remaining”
fiscal year 2005 2-year funds to the Boeing program management task
order.
[B] Funds are from the fiscal year 2006 supplemental.
[C] Funds appropriated in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 are no-year
dollars, meaning that they can be obligated at any time.
[D] Includes approximately $77.6 million of reprogrammed funds from
other DHS accounts.
[End of table]
Background: SBInet:
SBInet is the program for acquiring, developing, integrating, and
deploying an appropriate mix of the following:
(1)Surveillance technologies, such as sensors, cameras, and radars.
Examples include:
* unattended ground sensors (UGS) are to be used to detect heat and
vibrations associated with foot traffic and metal associated with
vehicles;
* radars mounted on fixed and mobile towers are to detect movement, and
cameras on fixed and mobile towers are to be used to identify,
classify,and track items of interest detected by the ground sensors and
the radars; and;
* aerial assets (e.g., helicopters and unmanned aerial surveillance
aircraft) are also to be used to provide video and infrared imaging to
enhance tracking of targets.
(2)Command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I)
technologies. The C3I technologies are to include software and hardware
to produce a Common Operating Picture (COP)—a uniform presentation of
activities within specific areas along the border. The sensors, radars,
and cameras are to gather information along the border, and the system
is to transmit this information to the COP terminals located in command
centers and agent vehicles and assemble this information to provide CBP
agents with border situational awareness.
Figure 2 provides a high-level, conceptual depiction of the long-term
SBInet systems solution.
Figure 2: High-Level, Conceptual Depiction of Long-Term SBInet
Operations:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The following components of the operations are depicted in the
illustration:
* Port of entry;
* U.S. border;
* Unattended ground sensors;
* Radar/camera tower;
* Agent vehicles (including mobile data terminal);
* Mobile surveillance system;
* Command center:
- Border patrol sector headquarters;
- Border patrol station;
* Unmanned aerial surveillance;
* Air support;
* Marine support.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data. Art Explosion (clip art).
[End of figure]
The first SBInet capabilities were deployed under a pilot or prototype
effort known as Project 28. Project 28 was accepted by the government
for deployment in February 2008—8 months behind schedule. As we have
previously reported, reasons for Project 28 performance shortfalls and
delays included the following:
* users (e.g., Border Patrol agents) were not involved in developing
the requirements,
* contractor oversight was limited, and,
* project scope and complexity were underestimated.[Footnote 6]
Project 28 is currently operating along 28 miles of the southwest
border in the Tucson sector of Arizona. The SBI program office plans to
incorporate lessons learned from Project 28 into future deployments.
The SBI program office plans to deploy future SBInet capabilities in
"blocks." For example, Block 1 is described as the first phase of an
effort to design, develop, integrate, test, and deploy a technology
system of hardware, software, and communications. Each block is to also
include a release or version of the COP. The SBI program office plans
to deploy Block 1 technology capabilities and COP version 0.5 to the
Tucson and Yuma sectors by 2011.
Background: SBI TI:
CBP, through the SBI program office, planned to have a total of 670
miles of fencing, including 370 miles of single-layer pedestrian
fencing and 300 miles of vehicle fencing, completed, under
construction, or under contract by December 31,2008.[Footnote 7]
In January 2009, CBP reported that it plans to complete nearly all the
planned fence projects by June 2009; however, meeting this schedule is
contingent on the resolution of pending litigation to acquire the
necessary property rights from landowners who have not agreed to sell
these rights to the federal government.
The SBI program office, through the SBI TI program, is using the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to contract for the construction of fencing and
supporting infrastructure (such as lights and roads), complete required
environmental assessments, and acquire necessary real estate.[Footnote
8]
See figure 3 for examples of fencing.
Figure 3: Examples of Fencing Styles along the Southwest Border:
[Refer to PDF for image: four photographs]
Photographs of:
* Picket fence (pedestrian fencing);
* Post and rail with wire mesh (pedestrian fencing);
* bollard fence (pedestrian fencing);
* Normandy vehicle barrier (vehicle fencing).
Source: CBP and GAO.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Legislative Condition #1: CBP’s SBI Program Progress (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a detailed accounting of the program’s
implementation to date for all investments, including technology and
tactical infrastructure, for funding already expended relative to
system capabilities or services, system performance levels, mission
benefits and outcomes, milestones, cost targets, program management
capabilities, identification of the maximum investment, including life
cycle costs, related to the SBI program or any successor program, and
description of the methodology used to obtain these cost figures.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied this
condition. Specifically, the plan included some required information,
such as a description of program implementation to date and program
management capabilities for SBInet and TI activities. However, it did
not include a detailed (emphasis added) accounting of the program’s
progress to date relative to other aspects of the legislative
condition, including milestones, or life cycle costs.[Footnote 9]
With regard to SBInet, the SBI expenditure plan:
* provided an accounting of program implementation to date, including:
- final acceptance of Project 28 and;
- acquisition and deployment of mobile surveillance systems (MSS)—
surveillance technologies (i.e., radars and cameras) mounted on a
trailer or truck chassis—and;
* provided an overview of the program management capabilities,
including development of a risk management program and adoption of a
strategic human capital management plan.
Additionally, with regard to SBInet, the SBI expenditure plan:
* did not describe system capabilities or services;[Footnote 10]
* identified some milestones, such as the acceptance of Project 28, but
did not include a detailed accounting of the milestones or activities
completed to date; and;
* identified SBInet actual and anticipated investments for fiscal year
2007 through fiscal year 2014, but these did not represent maximum
investment figures or a life cycle cost estimate.
With regard to SBI TI, the SBI expenditure plan:
* provided an accounting of TI program implementation to date relative
to system capabilities and services,such as the completion of
approximately 204 miles of pedestrian fencing and 154 miles of vehicle
fencing as of September 30, 2008;
* outlined program management capabilities, such as the structure and
role of SBI TI program office staff;
* identified fence performance standards, such as the requirement for
pedestrian fencing to have the capability to disable a vehicle, and a
design that will allow for expedient repair of damage or breaching;
and;
* included obligations and estimated completion costs for TI contracts.
Additionally, with regard to SBI TI, the SBI expenditure plan:
* included milestones for activities completed to date, such as the
miles of fence completed, but did not include a detailed accounting of
the planned versus the actual implementation dates; and;
* included information about the life span of fencing and the cost of
fencing maintenance for fiscal year 2009, and stated that CBP is
currently working with an independent cost estimator to develop a life
cycle cost estimate.
Legislative Condition #2: Describes How Activities Will Further the
Objectives of SBI’s Strategic Plan (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a description of how specific projects
will further the objectives of SBI, as defined in the Department of
Homeland Security Secure Border Plan, and how the expenditure plan
allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan satisfied the condition. The
plan provided information on how SBInet technology and pedestrian and
vehicle fencing further the specific goals established in the DHS
Secure Border Strategic Plan and how SBI determines the highest
priority border security needs and allocates funding accordingly.
The SBI expenditure plan:
* Described how projects align with and contribute directly to the
achievement of the goal in the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan “to
develop and deploy the optimal mix of personnel, infrastructure,
technology, and response capabilities to identify, classify, and
interdict cross-border violators.” Examples of specific projects that
align with this goal include:
- SBInet technology, which provides CBP agents with an enhanced ability
to identify illegal cross-border activity; and;
- pedestrian and vehicle fencing which persistently impedes
(consistently slows, delays, and obstructs movement) to illegal cross-
border traffic and facilitates patrol and interdiction efforts.
* Provided a description of how SBI allocates funding to those areas it
deems to be of highest priority through the CBP Resource Allocation
Plan, which is used to form the President’s budget request to Congress.
* Described how the U.S. Border Patrol’s planning and operational
requirements process informs the allocation of funds for the deployment
of the highest-priority SBInet technology and SBI TI activities.
In June 2008, we recommended that future expenditure plans include an
explicit description of how activities will further the objectives of
SBI and how the plan allocates funding to the highest priority border
security needs.[Footnote 11] The fiscal year 2009 expenditure plan
addressed and satisfied this recommendation.
Legislative Condition #3: Describes How Funds Are Obligated to Meet
Future Program Commitments (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes an explicit plan of action defining how
all funds are to be obligated to meet future program commitments, with
the planned expenditure of funds linked to the milestone-based delivery
of specific capabilities, services, performance levels, mission
benefits and outcomes, and program management capabilities.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied this
condition. Specifically, the plan included some information required by
the condition, such as planned obligations for SBInet and SBI TI
activities for fiscal year 2009 and program management capabilities.
However, all of the information required to satisfy this condition was
not provided, for example, the plan did not link planned fiscal year
2009 expenditures to the milestone-based delivery of mission benefits
and outcomes.[Footnote 12]
For SBInet and TI, the SBI expenditure plan defined how funds are to be
obligated in fiscal year 2009 to meet future program commitments. Table
4 provides a summary of these 2009 planned expenditures.
Table 4: Fiscal Year 2009 Planned Expenditures (Dollars in Millions):
Deployment:
Tactical infrastructure: $110[A];
SBInet technology: $385;
Program management: N/A;
Total: $495.
Operations and maintenance:
Tactical infrastructure: $75;
SBInet technology: $75;
Program management: N/A;
Total: $150.
Program management and environmental:
Tactical infrastructure: N/A;
SBInet technology: N/A;
Program management: $100;
Total: $100.
Border security demonstration project and communications:
Tactical infrastructure: N/A;
SBInet technology: N/A;
Program management: $30;
Total: $30.
Total:
Tactical infrastructure: $185;
SBInet technology: $460;
Program management: $130;
Total: $775.
Source: SBI.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
[A] Includes funds for fencing, lighting and access roads.
[End of table]
With regard to SBInet, the SBI expenditure plan:
* described planned obligations for SBInet activities for fiscal year
2009, including, among other things, planned obligations for the
design, deployment, and maintenance of Block 1 projects; and;
* described the program management capabilities that will continue to
be used in the future, such as the risk management process and
strategic human capital management plan.
Additionally, with regard to SBInet, the SBI expenditure plan:
* linked planned activities and expenditures to milestones, but did not
provide specific start or end dates for many milestones—10 of the 15
milestones are described as continuing efforts;
* described the links between planned activities, expenditures, and
outputs,[Footnote 13] but did not link these to the outcome of
operational control of the border(i.e., planned SBInet activities were
linked to outputs, such as completing designs for subsequent fiscal
year 2010 station deployments and demonstrating Block 1 system
performance in January 2009, but these outputs were not directly linked
to improvements in operational control); and;
* discussed planned SBInet activities for fiscal year 2009, including
the procurement of available systems and the development and deployment
of technology to geographical areas in Block 1, but did not describe
specific capabilities and services to be provided.
When we discussed our findings with CBP officials, they said that they
disagreed with our assessment that the expenditure plan did not
describe system capabilities or services to be provided. They stated
that they believed that information contained in the SBI expenditure
plan covers capabilities and services, and added that other
documentation, such as the SBInet Operational Capabilities Description
(OCD) document, includes a more detailed description of SBInet
capabilities and services.
We reviewed the OCD, and while it provides more detail on SBInet
capabilities and services, the document describes the proposed
capabilities for the SBInet end state solution rather than articulating
what is to be achieved during Block 1 and/or with fiscal year 2009
funds. Therefore, we maintain our position that while the SBI
expenditure plan discusses planned SBInet activities, it does not
describe the specific capabilities that will be delivered in fiscal
year 2009 as required by the legislative condition.
With regard to SBI TI, the SBI expenditure plan:
* described planned obligations for SBI’s TI activities for fiscal year
2009;
* described planned SBI TI activities for fiscal year 2009, including
construction of pedestrian and vehicle fencing and real estate planning
and acquisition to support fiscal year 2010 deployments; and;
* described current program management capabilities that will continue
to be used in the future, such as a strategic human capital management
plan.
Additionally, with regard to SBI TI, the SBI expenditure plan:
* described fence performance standards—such as the ability of
pedestrian and vehicle fencing to disable a vehicle—but did not link
the number of fencing miles to be constructed with such capabilities to
the planned expenditure of funds; and;
* linked planned actions and expenditures to outputs, but did not link
these to the outcome of operational control of the border (i.e.,
planned TI activities were linked to outputs, such as the construction
of approximately 670 miles of fence along the southwest border, but
these outputs were not linked to improvements in operational control).
Legislative Condition #4: Identifies Staffing Requirements by Activity
(Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Identifies staffing, including full-time
equivalents, contractors, and detailees, by program office.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan satisfied the condition because
it identified staffing requirements by program office.
The SBI expenditure plan identified staffing requirements by program
office. As of September 30, 2008, CBP’s SBI program offices, including
the Office of the Executive director, the Program Control Division,
Budget and Finance, TI, and SBInet, had 228 employees on board (see
table 5).
Table 5: CBP SBI Employees, as of September 30, 2008, by Program
Office:
Program Office: Office of the Executive Director;
Government employees: 3;
Contract employees: 2;
Detailees: 0;
Total: 5.
Program Office: Program Control Division;
Government employees: 17;
Contract employees: 10;
Detailees: 1;
Total: 28.
Program Office: Tactical Infrastructure;
Government employees: 12;
Contract employees: 20;
Detailees: 2;
Total: 34.
Program Office: Budget and Finance;
Government employees: 9;
Contract employees: 4;
Detailees: 0;
Total: 13.
Program Office: SBInet;
Government employees: 46;
Contract employees: 87;
Detailees: 15;
Total: 148.
Program Office: Total;
Government employees: 87;
Contract employees: 123;
Detailees: 18;
Total: 228.
Source: CBP.
[End of table]
A new organizational structure is planned for 2009. The proposed
structure includes 55 contractors and 181 full-time equivalent
government employees.
Legislative Condition #5: Describes Security Needs at the Northern
Border and Ports of Entry (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a description of how the plan addresses
security needs at the northern border and ports of entry, including
infrastructure, technology, design and operations requirements,
specific locations where funding would be used, and priorities for
northern border activities.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied the
condition. The plan provided a general description of northern border
security initiatives; however, it did not describe specific locations
where the $40 million designated for northern border technology will be
used, or provide information on the relative priorities of the
initiatives.
The SBI expenditure plan:
* provided a general description of northern border security
initiatives, such as (1) deploying additional border patrol agents from
the southwest border to the northern border, (2) modernizing
communications infrastructure, and (3) starting up Air and Marine
operations at five locations, but did not specify the relative priority
of the various initiatives;
* described how the $20 million allocated to SBInet activities in March
2007 will be used, but did not describe specific locations where the
$40 million allocated in October 2008 for northern border technology
will be spent;
* described operational requirements for certain CBP Air and Marine
efforts, but did not provide detailed information on operational
requirements for other initiatives;
* described three broad primary threats along the northern border
(terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration), but did not
link planned activities to these threats; and;
* stated that CBP officials are developing a northern border strategy
and are participating in the development of a comprehensive DHS
northern border strategy.
In November 2008, we recommended that for future northern border
reporting requirements, the Secretary of Homeland Security include more
specific information on the actions, resources, and time frame needed
to achieve security of the northern border along with any attendant
uncertainties, and the basis used to prioritize action and resources
for northern border security relative to other areas of national
security.[Footnote 14] Because this recommendation is related to this
condition but has not been fully addressed, we are not making new
recommendations related to the northern border in this briefing.
Legislative Condition #6: Reports on Budget, Activities Completed, and
Progress (Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a report on budget, obligations and
expenditures, the activities completed, and the progress made by the
program in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border
of the United States.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied this
condition. The plan reported the budget, obligations, and expenditure
amounts from fiscal years 2007 through 2009, and discussed activities
completed. However, the plan did not attribute changes in the level of
operational border control to the SBInet and TI programs because CBP
does not measure the contribution each component of the SBI program
makes to the overall assessment of effective control. Instead, the plan
explained that effective control is not necessarily gained through the
deployment of just one tool or resource.
The SBI expenditure plan:
* reported the appropriations, obligations, and expenditures[Footnote
15] for fiscal years 2007 through 2009; and;
* discussed completed activities, including:
- completion of 357 miles of fencing as of September 30, 2008;
- acceptance of Project 28; and;
- deployment of MSS along the southwest border.
The SBI expenditure plan included a breakdown of border miles under
effective control for the entire U.S. border for fiscal years 2005
through 2008 (see table 6), and stated that CBP officials make the
final assessment of effective control.
Table 6: Miles Considered under Effective Control by U.S. Border
Patrol, as of September 30, 2008:
Area of the border: Southwest border miles;
FY 2005: 241;
FY 2006: 345;
FY 2007: 486;
FY 2008: 625.
Area of the border: Northern border miles;
FY 2005: 12;
FY 2006: 12;
FY 2007: 12;
FY 2008: 31.
Area of the border: Coastal miles;
FY 2005: 35;
FY 2006: 92;
FY 2007: 101;
FY 2008: 101.
Source: SBI.
[End of table]
The SBI expenditure plan stated that "while technology, TI, and other
resources will continue to contribute to enhancing effective control of
the Nation’s borders, it is important to emphasize that effective
control of a specific segment is not necessarily gained through the
deployment of just one tool or resource." Therefore, the expenditure
plan did not delineate between improvements in operational control that
are directly attributable to the SBInet and TI programs and those that
are caused by a combination of concurrent government actions, such as
hiring of additional Border Patrol agents and coordination of efforts
between DHS and local authorities.
Legislative Condition #7: Lists All Open GAO and OIG Recommendations
(Partially Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Include a listing of all open GAO and OIG
recommendations related to the program and the status of DHS actions to
address the recommendations, including milestones to fully address
them.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied the
condition. The plan listed the recommendations and provided the status
and actions taken to address each one. For the GAO recommendations
which resulted from previous expenditure plan reviews, the plan stated
that closure of the recommendations depends on the results of our
review of the plan. However, the SBI expenditure plan did not include
milestones to fully address the remaining GAO or the DHS OIG
recommendations.
The SBI expenditure plan listed four open OIG recommendations, but the
plan did not provide milestones to fully address them. CBP reported
that it is taking corrective actions to address these recommendations.
By December 31, 2008, CBP was required to provide documentation to DHS
that ensures that the risks associated with planned SBInet acquisition,
development, testing and deployment activities are assessed, and, the
results including proposed courses of action for mitigating risk.
The SBI expenditure plan listed 10 open GAO recommendations.
* In February 2007,we recommended that "future expenditure plans
include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the
capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual
SBInet program activities."[Footnote 16] The SBI expenditure plan
stated that the status of the recommendation depends on GAO’s review.
Based on our review, the fiscal year 2009 SBI expenditure plan is more
detailed than the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 plans, but it did not fully
address our February 2007 recommendation because it did not include
explicit and measurable commitments relative to the capabilities,
schedule, costs, and benefits for individual SBInet program activities.
For example, the 2009 SBI expenditure plan did not include a life cycle
cost estimate for the SBInet or TI programs.
* In June 2008, we recommended that future expenditure plans include an
explicit description of how activities will further the objectives of
SBI, as defined in the DHS Secure Border Strategic Plan, and how the
plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs to
provide Congress with information it needs to oversee the program.”
[Footnote 17] The SBI expenditure plan stated that the status of the
recommendation depends on our review of the fiscal year 2009 SBI
expenditure plan. Based on our review, we determined that the fiscal
year 2009 SBI expenditure plan addressed our June 2008 recommendation.
We plan to close this recommendation.
* In September 2008, we made eight recommendations related to improving
DHS’s efforts to acquire and implement SBInet.[Footnote 18] The SBI
expenditure plan stated that by December 31, 2008, CBP was required to
provide documentation to DHS that ensures that the risks associated
with planned SBInet acquisition, development, testing and deployment
activities are assessed, and the results, including proposed courses of
action for mitigating risk. However, the SBI expenditure plan did not
provide milestones to fully address these recommendations. We have
ongoing work to assess actions taken by DHS to address the eight
recommendations.
Legislative Condition #8: Certification by the DHS CPO (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the CPO of the
Department that the program: (a) has been reviewed and approved in
accordance with the investment management process of the Department,
and that the process fulfills all capital planning and investment
control requirements and reviews established by the OMB, including as
provided in Circular A–11, part 7; (b) that the plans for the program
comply with the Federal acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines,
and practices, and a description of the actions being taken to address
areas of non-compliance, the risks associated with such actions,
together with any plans for addressing these risks, and the status of
the implementation of such actions; (c) that procedures to prevent
conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major
subcontractors are established and that the SBI Program Office has
adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the SBI program, all
contracts, including the exercise of technical oversight; and (d) the
certifications required under this paragraph should be accompanied by
all documents or memoranda, as well as documentation and a description
of the investment review processes used to obtain such certifications.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied the
condition. The DHS CPO certified that the program met the condition’s
requirements. However, this certification did not address all aspects
of the condition. For example, the assessment did not specifically
determine whether the program has adequate staff and resources to
effectively manage the program.
On December 11, 2008, the DHS CPO certified that the SBI program was
reviewed in accordance with capital planning and investment control
procedures, per OMB Circular A-11, Part 7, and DHS’s Investment Review
Board (IRB) issued an Acquisition Decision Memorandum on September 8,
2008. The September 2008 memo authorized aspects of the program and
required specific actions. These actions include an update or
completion of documentation, such as the Life Cycle Cost Estimate and a
Test and Evaluation Master Plan. However, the DHS CPO certification
letter and supporting documentation did not indicate whether the
program fulfilled all the requirements under OMB Circular A-11.
The DHS CPO also certified that the program complied with federal
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and practices.
Specifically, DHS CPO officials conducted a baseline review of the SBI
Acquisition Office for compliance with the federal acquisition rules.
The DHS CPO also certified that the SBInet prime contractor has
established procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the
prime integrator and major subcontractors and that the program has
increased staff and resources to manage SBI activities.
* The SBI Acquisition Office provided the DHS CPO documentation and
guidance to mitigate organizational conflicts of interest. The prime
contractor’s Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan
delineates responsibilities, rules, and procedures for avoiding,
identifying, evaluating, and resolving organizational conflicts of
interest.
* The DHS CPO’s assessment did not specifically determine whether the
program has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the
program. The DHS CPO stated that staffing challenges remain, but that
there has been an increase in the acquisition staff and certification
of personnel. Further review of the supporting documentation provided
by the SBI Acquisition Office shows additional areas of improvement. As
of November 21, 2008, the SBI Acquisitions Office reported that 55
percent of the contracting professionals required to have a level III
certification[Footnote 19] had obtained the certification, while the
other 45 percent had submitted the required documentation to obtain
such a certification, but the DHS certification had not yet been
granted. In addition, of these contracting professionals, 36 percent,
or 5 of the 14 program managers and deputy program managers, have
obtained the required level III certification.
The documentation used in determining the DHS CPO’s assessment was
included as a separate attachment to the SBI expenditure plan.
Legislative Condition #9: Certification by the DHS CIO (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the Chief
Information Officer of the Department that: (a) the system architecture
of the program is sufficiently aligned with the information systems
enterprise architecture of the Department to minimize future rework,
including a description of all aspects of the architectures that were
or were not assessed in making the alignment determination, the date of
the alignment determination, and any known areas of misalignment
together with the associated risks and corrective actions to address
any such areas; (b) the program has a risk management process that
regularly and proactively identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and
monitors risks throughout the system life cycle and communicates high-
risk conditions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Department of
Homeland Security investment decision-makers, as well as a listing of
all the program’s high risks and the status of efforts to address such
risks; (c) an independent verification and validation agent is
currently under contract for the projects funded under this heading;
and (d) the certification required under this paragraph should be
accompanied by all documents or memoranda, as well as documentation and
a description of the investment review processes used to obtain such
certification.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied the
condition. The DHS CIO certified that the program met the condition’s
requirements. However, this certification did not address all aspects
of the condition because it did not address the associated risks of
three areas that had been previously identified as misaligned to DHS’s
enterprise architecture.
On January 5, 2009, the DHS CIO certified that the systems architecture
of the SBInet program was sufficiently aligned with DHS’s information
systems enterprise architecture. As part of the DHS CIO certification,
the documentation described aspects of the enterprise architecture that
were and were not assessed.
To ensure continued compliance, the DHS CIO indicated that the SBInet
program office must take several actions, such as having the Enterprise
Architecture Board (EAB)[Footnote 20] review the findings of the next
version of the COP.
The EAB cited eight issues (i.e., areas of misalignment) in September
2007. As of December 2008, three issues remain open. This certification
did not address the associated risks of these misaligned areas, as
required by the condition.
On January 5, 2009, the DHS CIO also certified that the SBInet program
has a risk management process in place. According to the DHS CIO, the
risk management process regularly identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and
monitors risks throughout the system life cycle, and communicated high
risk conditions to DHS investment decisionmakers.
To ensure continued compliance, the DHS CIO indicated that by March 31,
2009, the SBInet program office should conduct a risk assessment to
ensure that the office contains the correct mix of staff. The
assessment should identify:
* the number of staff (federal and contractor) and the areas they
support (i.e., information technology, acquisitions, etc.);
* the skill set and qualifications of each federal and contractor staff
member (skills, experience, abilities, and capacity), including
certifications; and;
*a mitigation strategy to ensure a “robust” staff is in place that will
continue to assess and successfully mitigate identified moderate-to
high-level risks (e.g., cost overruns and schedule slippage).
On January 5, 2009, the DHS CIO also certified that the SBInet program
has an independent verification and validation agent currently under
contract. To ensure continued compliance, the CIO directed the SBInet
program office to:
* submit the following documents by March 31, 2009:
- Communications Plan;
- Monthly Activity Reports;
- Software Verification and Validation Plan;
- Software Verification and Validation Report;
- Independent Government Cost Estimate; and;
- high-risk communications documents with DHS stakeholders, and;
* include the contractor in all phases of the testing to be conducted
for the first two projects of Block 1. In addition, all documentation,
reports and test results from the contractor’s work in both the program
and testing tasks should be submitted to the DHS EAB for review within
30 days of completion.
The documentation used in determining the DHS CIO’s assessment was
included as a separate attachment to the SBI expenditure plan.
Legislative Condition #10: Certification by the DHS CHCO (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes a certification by the Chief Human
Capital Officer (CHCO) of the Department that the human capital needs
of the SBI program are being addressed so as to ensure adequate staff
and resources to effectively manage the Secure Border Initiative,
together with a description of SBI staffing priorities.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied the
condition. The DHS CHCO provisionally certified that the fiscal year
2009 SBI human capital needs were being strategically and proactively
managed, but noted that the SBI program office may face challenges in
implementing its human capital plan.
On December 8, 2008, the DHS CHCO provisionally certified that the
fiscal year 2009 SBI human capital needs were being strategically and
proactively managed, and that the current human capital capabilities
were sufficient to execute the plans discussed in the SBI expenditure
plan.
The DHS CHCO noted that the SBI human capital plan provided specific
initiatives to address hiring, development, and retention of employees,
and described metrics to measure progress and results of these
initiatives. However, the DHS CHCO also noted that human capital
management challenges remain.
The DHS CHCO will continue to work closely with the SBI program staff
and will meet again in May 2009 to discuss updates and review changes
to the planning documents.
Legislative Condition #11: Analysis of Alternatives (Partially
Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Includes an analysis by the Secretary for each
segment, defined as not more than 15 miles, of fencing or tactical
infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative
means of achieving operational control, and such analysis should
include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended effects
on communities, and other factors critical to the decision making
process.
GAO analysis: The SBI expenditure plan partially satisfied the
condition. Specifically, the plan includes some required information
for each fencing segment, such as an alternative means of achieving
operational control, including cost and level of operational control.
However, the possible unintended effects on communities were not
provided for each fencing segment.
The SBI expenditure plan provided an analysis of alternatives for 50
fencing segments[Footnote 21] and the analysis included:
* lengths of each fencing segment;
* level of operational control for each fencing segment;
* alternatives to gain effective control of the southwest border,
including pedestrian and vehicle fencing, personnel, technology, and
additional infrastructure construction (i.e., dam construction);
* an analysis of the selected approach compared to other alternative
means of achieving operational control; and;
* costs associated with the different alternatives.
However, the plan did not include information for all fencing segments
related to the possible unintended effects on communities as required
by the legislative condition. Specifically, for the 50 fencing segments
reviewed, 24 did not include detailed information on the possible
unintended effects on communities in proximity to where the fencing
segments are being constructed.
In addition, 16 of the 26 fencing segments that mentioned possible
unintended effects on communities used the following pro form a
language: “The community relations cost of such a deployment is a
perception by the local residents and businesses that we have become
an “occupation army,” standing shoulder to shoulder along the border.”
When we discussed our findings with CBP officials, they said that
consideration was given to community impacts throughout the development
of the analyses of alternatives, and that the unintended effects on
communities were addressed in the assessments for each segment. The
officials also said that although some fencing segment analyses did not
include a narrative discussing this issue, concerns regarding the
unintended effect on communities were addressed in the assessments.
While CBP may have included such analyses in their assessments, the SBI
expenditure plan did not clearly show that such assessments were made
for each fencing segment as required by the legislative condition.
Legislative Condition #12: Is Reviewed by GAO (Satisfied):
Legislative condition: Is reviewed by the GAO.
GAO analysis: Our review of the SBI expenditure plan satisfied the
condition.
* The SBI program office provided draft versions of the SBI expenditure
plan and supporting documentation.
* We also reviewed the final version of the plan submitted to Congress
on March 4, 2009.
* We conducted our review from October 2008 to March 2009.
[End of section]
Concluding Observations:
The legislatively mandated SBI expenditure plan requirement for the
program is a congressional oversight mechanism aimed at ensuring that
planned expenditures are justified, performance against plans is
measured, and accountability for results is established. SBI’s fiscal
year 2007, 2008, and 2009 expenditure plans have consistently improved
from year to year; each plan has generally provided more detail and
higher quality information than the year before.
Despite this general improvement, the fiscal year 2009 plan did not
fully satisfy all of the conditions set out by law. Specifically, three
of the conditions were satisfied and nine were partially satisfied.
Until the plan comes closer to satisfying all the conditions, Congress
does not have the information it requested in the expenditure plan to
oversee the program and hold DHS accountable for program results.
Satisfying the conditions is also important to minimize the program’s
exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks.
The plan satisfied our June 2008 recommendation that future expenditure
plans include an explicit description of how activities will further
the objectives of SBI, as defined in the DHS Secure Border Strategic
Plan, and how the plan allocates funding to the highest priority border
security needs to provide Congress with information it requested to
oversee the program.[Footnote 22] Implementation of this recommendation
is an important step for the program in terms of providing needed
information regarding how funds are allocated to the highest priority
needs.
However, the plan did not satisfy our February 2007 recommendation that
the plan include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the
capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual
SBInet program activities because, among other things, it does not
provide complete information about the SBI schedule and capabilities.
[Footnote 23] As investment in the SBI program continues, implementing
this recommendation will continue to be important to ensure
accountability and transparency.
Furthermore, the plan partially satisfied the three conditions where
certifications were required from the DHS CPO, CIO, and CHCO. In
addition, the limitations cited by the DHS CPO, CIO, and CHCO in their
certification letters reflect the department's overall concerns about
the SBI program. Given the magnitude of the program and that this is
the third expenditure plan required by Congress, it is important that
the program meets the various program management criteria contained in
these conditions.
[End of section]
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. On
April 14, 2009, DHS provided written comments on a draft of this report
which are reprinted in enclosure 2.
DHS disagreed with our assessment of partially satisfied for
legislative conditions 1, 3, and 11. Specifically, DHS said that we had
not considered additional information it provided that would support an
assessment of these legislative conditions as satisfied. Because the
legislative requirement required that the expenditure plan (emphasis
added) contain information to address the legislative conditions, we
limited our assessment to the information in the expenditure plan. In
response to DHS’s comments, we clarified our definitions of satisfied,
partially satisfied and not satisfied to make it clear that we relied
only on the expenditure plan in making our assessments. Nevertheless,
the additional information program officials provided during the course
of our review added context, but would not have changed our assessments
of these legislative conditions, as described below.
In commenting on legislative conditions 1 and 3, DHS disagreed with our
assessment that the plan did not provide sufficient information in
three areas related to SBInet: (1) capabilities and services, (2)
milestones, and (3) maximum investment or lifecycle costs. With respect
to the first area, SBInet capabilities and services, DHS said that the
additional information provided, such as the Acquisition Program
Baseline and supporting documentation, sufficiently addressed this
area. Because several of these documents were received near the end or
after our review, we were unable to fully assess them. We are
continuing to review these documents in connection with our effort to
follow up on the recommendations we made in our September 2008 report
on SBInet.[Footnote 24]
With respect to the second area, milestones, DHS also said that
additional information they provided to us during briefings should have
been sufficient to satisfy the legislative condition. We reviewed the
additional information, such as briefing materials containing updated
deployment schedules. These documents, such as the Block 1 Program
Schedule, depict current schedule information, but do not provide a
detailed accounting of planned versus actual implementation dates for
all investments. Thus, we continue to believe that DHS did not provide
the level of detail required by the legislative requirements.
With respect to the third area, life cycle costs, DHS noted that
because SBInet is an evolutionary acquisition program with spiral
developments, CBP cannot provide “full” life cycle costs (i.e., the
life cycle cost for the completed SBInet program) until future SBInet
block configurations and program plans are identified. We recognize
that calculating the full life cycle cost could be challenging.
Nevertheless, our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide notes that a
best practice under spiral development programs includes that program
costs be estimated, including all life cycle costs, and provides
guidance on developing such cost estimates.[Footnote 25] Thus, we
maintain our position that neither the SBI expenditure plan nor the
supporting documentation provide sufficient information on a maximum
investment or life cycle cost estimate required by legislative
conditions 1 and 3.
DHS did not comment on other factors that supported our assessments
that conditions 1 and 3 were partially satisfied. For example, for
condition 1, planned versus actual implementation dates for TI
activities were absent as was a lifecycle cost estimate. For condition
3, among other things, mission benefits and outcomes were not linked to
either the SBInet or TI investments. Therefore, even if the additional
information DHS provided regarding SBInet capabilities and services,
milestones, and a maximum investment or life cycle cost estimate were
sufficient to change our assessments in these areas, the conditions
would remain partially satisfied due to the other factors we assessed
within these conditions.
In commenting on legislative condition 11, DHS disagreed with our
assessment that the possible unintended effects on communities were not
provided for each fencing segment. DHS stated that if there were no
issues regarding community impact, no documentation was included in the
plan. Yet, the legislative condition called for this information to be
included. DHS noted that its methodology for conducting its assessments
contained a requirement to obtain input from stakeholders, including
landowners, and told us that all Sector Chiefs complied with this
requirement. We agree that the methodology required that such input be
obtained, but DHS’s documentation did not substantiate that all Sector
Chiefs complied for each fencing segment. Thus, we maintain our
position that legislative condition 11 was partially satisfied. In its
comments, DHS stated that officials will ensure that future expenditure
plans capture all unintended effects on communities.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-244R]. Washington, D.C.: January 29,
2009.
Northern Border Security: DHS’s Report Could Better Inform Congress by
Identifying Actions, Resources, and Time Frames Needed to Address
Vulnerabilities. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-93].
Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2008.
Department of Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major Programs
Lack Appropriate Oversight. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-29]. Washington, D.C.: November 18,
2008.
Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant Risks in
Delivering Key Technology Investment. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1086]. Washington, D.C.: September
22, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant Risks in
Delivering Key Technology Investment. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1148T]. Washington, D.C.: September
10, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Deployment Challenges.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1141T]. Washington,
D.C.: September 10, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan Shows
Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and DHS
Accountability. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-739R].
Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2008.
Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment Needed
to Improve Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-263]. Washington, D.C.: April 22,
2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of Applying
Lessons Learned to Future Projects. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-508T]. Washington, D.C.: February
27, 2008.
Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of SBInet
Program Implementation. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-131T]. Washington, D.C.: October 24,
2007.
Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Planning and Management Improvements
Needed to Control Risks. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-504T]. Washington, D.C.: February
27, 2007.
Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to Better
Support Oversight and Accountability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-309]. Washington, D.C.: February 15,
2007.
[End of section]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov]
April 14, 2009:
Mr. Richard Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
RE: GAO-09-274R, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Secure Border
Initiative Fiscal Year 2009 Expenditure Plan (GAO Job Code 440776):
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report referenced above. A mandate in the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, requires
the DHS to prepare an expenditure plan for the Secure Border Initiative
(SBI) for fiscal year 2009 that satisfies 12 specified conditions, and
for the plan to be submitted to and approved by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees before the agency could obligate $400 million
of the approximately $775 million appropriated for U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) fencing, infrastructure, and technology. In
response to this requirement, DHS submitted a plan on March 4, 2009.
As required by the Act, GAO reviewed the plan and analyzed whether it
satisfied 12 legislative conditions. GAO concluded that the expenditure
plan satisfied 3 legislative conditions (conditions 2, 4, and 12) and
partially satisfied 9 (conditions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11). The
report does not include any recommendations for congressional
consideration or agency action.
GAO appropriately recognizes the significant progress the program has
made over the past two years to address congressional concerns.
However, CBP strongly disagrees with GAO's assessment of "partially
satisfied" regarding legislative conditions 1, 3, and 11. Officials
commented at the March 9, 2009, exit conference that GAO did not take
into account other factors that supported a satisfactory rating on
these legislative conditions. The following comments are offered in
response to the report:
Legislative Condition # 1: GAO analysis highlights an inadequate
description of overall system capabilities or services, an inadequate
accounting of milestones or activities completed to date, and an
absence of a "maximum investment" or life cycle cost estimate.
CBP disagrees with GAO's assessment. The SBI Program Office reviewed
the SBInet Block 1 Operational Requirements and System Functional
Requirements with GAO, and believes this information provides
substantial details for the SBInet Block 1 system capabilities and
services to be provided to CBP operational users. More importantly, CBP
operational users have acknowledged and approved of these Block I
system capabilities and services, currently undergoing formal
qualification testing and preparation for initial deployment to
Arizona.
Similarly, the SBI Program Office provided GAO with a detailed
accounting of SBInet Block 1 program milestones, accomplishments to
date relative to the plan, and the comprehensive Block I cost estimates
for construction, deployment, operations and sustainment. Because
SBInet is an evolutionary acquisition program with spiral development,
future SBInet Block configurations and program plans are not yet
identified, and therefore SBI officials cannot provide "full" life
cycle costs for the yet to be defined program. From October 2008 to
February 2009, GAO was briefed on SBInet's evolutionary and spiral
strategy, and the Block 1 program plan. The Acquisition Program Plan
and Block 1 were approved by the Department's Acquisition Review Board
in February 2009. Additionally, the Department of Defense's Cost
Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG), which has demonstrated methods for
estimating spiral development programs, will be conducting, on DHS's
behalf, an independent cost estimate for the program to confirm our
understanding of the resources required to successfully and completely
execute this initiative.
Legislative Condition #3: GAO analysis highlights inadequate linkage of
planned 2009 expenditures to the milestone-based delivery of mission
benefits and outcomes, also citing the absence of detailed program
schedules and descriptions of planned system capabilities and services.
CBP acknowledges the need for improved definition of mission benefits
and outcomes for the SBInet investment, and has structured internal
planning activities to develop more specific mission-based measures for
technology-based investments. However, CBP disagrees with GAO's
characterization that detailed schedules and system capability
descriptions are lacking. The SBI Program Office provided GAO with a
series of briefings from October 2008 to February 2009 on the program's
development and planned delivery of programmatic documentation to the
Department that provided DHS with a comprehensive assessment of risks
associated with planned SBInet acquisition, development, testing and
deployment activities, and proposed alternatives for mitigating program
risk. The Department's Acquisition Review Board approved the Block 1
Program direction in February 2009. Subsequently, in March 2009, GAO
was provided copies of the approved SBInet Acquisition Program Baseline
and supporting documentation that included Block 1 operational and
system functional requirements (approved by the CBP operational end-
users), a detailed Block 1 program plan, a Block 1 program schedule
(Roadmap), and the complete Block 1 program cost estimate and
supporting documentation. Additionally, in March 2009, SBI provided GAO
with a briefing on the SBInet Integrated Master Plan and Integrated
Master Schedule approach.
Legislative Condition #11: GAO analysis concluded that the expenditure
plan provided some required information for each fencing segment, but
possible unintended effects on communities were not provided for each
fencing segment.
Non-responses or non-issues with respect to possible unintended effects
on communities were not reported in the Alternative of Analysis (AoAs).
However, all possible unintended effects that had an impact were
solicited from stakeholders through outreach efforts conducted by CBP
and considered and scored in every AoA alternative matrix score sheet
as one of several measures of effectiveness. GAO was provided the AoA
framework document which was distributed to the Sector Chiefs that
outlined the fundamental requirements to be considered when completing
each AoA. The requirements included: "(1) the initial Border Patrol
operational assessment; (2) input from stakeholders, including
landowners; (3) environmental assessments; and (4) engineering
assessments to include the cost to construct" All Sector Chiefs
complied with these requirements. CBP officials believe the AoAs
satisfied the analysis criteria required by the legislative condition.
Nevertheless, officials will ensure that future AoAs capture all
unintended effects on communities, as well as document non-issues as
stated by community representatives.
The 2009 expenditure plan does not include any new border fencing.
However, the plan does include gates and bridges and CBP officials will
continue to complete AoA for all tactical infrastructure projects and
to document all requirements and issues as part of their efforts to
ensure sound management decisions.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3655-57 (2008). 2The act
required that the expenditure plan be submitted within 90 days after
enactment.
[2] In November 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
announced the launch of SBI, a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program
aimed at securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration.
Elements of SBI are carried out by several organizations within DHS.
[3] Pub. L. No. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3655-57 (2008). The
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009, required an expenditure plan that satisfies
12 specified conditions to be submitted to and approved by the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees before the agency could obligate
$400 million of the approximately $775 million appropriated for CBP
fencing, infrastructure, and technology. In response to this
requirement, DHS submitted a plan on March 4, 2009, titled “U.S.Customs
and Border Protection: Secure Border Initiative Border Security,
Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology (BSFIT) Fiscal Year 2009
Expenditure Plan.” The act also required GAO to review the plan. For
purposes of this briefing, we refer to this plan as the SBI expenditure
plan.
[4] Satisfied means that the plan either satisfied or provides for
satisfying each requirement of the condition that we reviewed.
Partially satisfied means that the plan either satisfied or provides
for satisfying some, but not all, key aspects of the condition that we
reviewed. For conditions 8, 9, and 10, satisfied means that all aspects
of condition were certified and partially satisfied means all aspects
of the condition were not certified or that it was conditionally or
provisionally certified.
[5] At a port of entry location, CBP officers secure the flow of people
and cargo into and out of the country, while facilitating legitimate
travel and trade.
[6] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of
SBInet Program Implementation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-131T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24,
2007); and Secure Border Initiative: Observations on the Importance of
Applying Lessons Learned to Future Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-508T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27,
2008).
[7] Under the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, DHS was
to identify the 370 miles, or other mileage determined by the
Secretary, along the southwest border where fencing would be most
practical and effective in deterring illegal entrants and complete
construction of reinforced fencing along these miles no later than
December 31, 2008. The act also requires DHS to construct a total of
700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border where
fencing would be most practical and effective, but does not provide a
deadline. Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 564(a)(2)(B), 121 Stat. 1844, 2090-91
(2007).
[8] The SBI program office also has a supply and supply chain
management contract with Boeing to provide some construction materials,
such as steel, for the fence construction projects. Boeing was
previously contracted to construct 32 miles of fencing in BMGR in 2007.
[9] For guidance on estimating costs, see GAO, Cost Estimating and
Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital
Program Costs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP]
(Washington, D.C.: March 2009).
[10] In September 2008, we reported that important aspects of SBInet
remain ambiguous and in a continued state of flux, making it uncertain
and unclear what technology capabilities will be delivered, when and
where they will be delivered, and how they will be delivered. For
example, the scope and timing of planned SBInet deployments and
capabilities have continued to change since the program began and are
unclear. See GAO, Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address
Significant Risks in Delivering Key Technology Investment, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1086] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22,
2008).
[11] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Fiscal Year 2008 Expenditure Plan
Shows Improvement, but Deficiencies Limit Congressional Oversight and
DHS Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-739R] (Washington, D.C.: June 26,
2008).
[12] OMB Circular A-11 states that outcomes describe the intended
result of carrying out a program or activity. Outcomes define an event
or condition that is external to the program or activity and that is of
direct importance to the intended beneficiaries, the public, or both.
[13] OMB Circular A-11 states that outputs describe the level of
activity that will be provided over a period of time, including a
description of the characteristics (e.g., timeliness) established as
standards for the activity. Outputs refer to the internal activities of
a program (i.e., the products and services delivered).
[14] GAO, Northern Border Security: DHS’s Report Could Better Inform
Congress by Identifying Actions, Resources, and Time Frames Needed to
Address Vulnerabilities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-93] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 25,
2008).
[15] An Independent Auditor's Report on DHS's Fiscal Year 2008
Financial Statements found that CBP did not enforce its policies and
procedures to monitor and deobligate or close-out its obligations in a
timely manner, but noted that CBP had initiated a review of open
obligations and, as a result, had deobligated funds. We did not assess
the extent to which this audit finding is material to the obligation
and expenditure data provided by CBP in its SBI expenditure plan.
[16] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: SBInet Expenditure Plan Needs to
Better Support Oversight and Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-309] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15,
2007).
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-739R].
[18] GAO, Secure Border Initiative: DHS Needs to Address Significant
Risks in Delivering Key Technology Investment, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1086] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22,
2008).
[19] DHS directive MD-0782 establishes policies and procedures for
certification for DHS acquisition program and project managers. A level
III certification is the highest level possible.
[20] The EAB evaluates and approves information technology investments
for enterprise architecture alignment and ensures that the enterprise
architecture is updated and maintained.
[21] An attachment to the SBI expenditure plan provided an analysis of
alternatives for the 50 fencing segments that will be completed, under
construction, or under contract using fiscal year 2009 funds.
[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-739R].
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-309].
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1086].
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP], p. 45.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: